Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Step3 VL 10B emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Step3 VL 10B

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 46.397tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Step3 VL 10B` vs `Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct debate, Step3 VL 10B scores 60 against Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Step3 VL 10B300ms

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct300ms

Tokens per Second

Step3 VL 10B29

Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct46.397

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct

Power is only one part of the equation. This Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Step3 VL 10B would cost $0.018, whereas Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Battle for You?

Choose Step3 VL 10B if...

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Step3 VL 10B vs Olmo 3.1 32B Instruct Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/